Purpose: To assess baseline clinical and urodynamic profiles of a contemporary cohort of men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) as part of the ROSE (Robotic and Open Surgery for Prostate Cancer: A Prospective, Multi-centre, Comparative Study of Functional and Oncological Outcomes) study. Methods: Men with localized prostate cancer undergoing RP were prospectively recruited to undergo clinical assessment and urodynamic testing prior to surgery as part of a clinical trial. The International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) was used to determine participants’ degree of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Results: Eighty-five men with a median age of 64.5 years and a median prostate-specific antigen level of 6.3 ng/mL were prospectively recruited. Of patients with complete baseline data, 36 (50.7%), 28 (39.4%), and 7 (9.9%) had mild (IPSS<8), moderate (IPSS 8–19), and severe (IPSS>20) LUTS, respectively. Obstruction was identified in 18 men (29.5%), and 9 (14.8%) showed detrusor underactivity. Of the 15 patients with detrusor overactivity, 12 (80%) reported overactive bladder (OAB). Of men with urodynamic obstruction, 5 (31.3%), 10 (62.5%), and 1 (6.3%) reported mild, moderate, and severe LUTS, respectively. Of men without OAB, 4 (11.8%, P=0.002) showed filling phase abnormalities, 13 (46.4%, P=0.611) had flow rates of <15 mL/sec, and 7 (30.4%, P=0.767) showed obstruction. Of men with mild or no LUTS, 5 (20%, P=0.072) showed obstruction and 4 (16%, P=0.524) showed poor contractility. Conclusion LUTS and OAB were common in men with localized prostate cancer undergoing RP. Detrusor overactivity and urodynamic filling phase abnormalities were strongly correlated with OAB. IPSS did not show a strong correlation with bladder outflow obstruction or detrusor underactivity. Urodynamic filling abnormalities were found in 11.8% of men without OAB. Symptomatic and functional assessment may therefore have a role in the preoperative counselling of patients and possibly guide postoperative management of LUTS, especially if OAB is present.

Purpose: To assess baseline clinical and urodynamic profiles of a contemporary cohort of men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) as part of the ROSE (Robotic and Open Surgery for Prostate Cancer: A Prospective, Multi-centre, Comparative Study of Functional and Oncological Outcomes) study. Methods: Men with localized prostate cancer undergoing RP were prospectively recruited to undergo clinical assessment and urodynamic testing prior to surgery as part of a clinical trial. The International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) was used to determine participants’ degree of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Results: Eighty-five men with a median age of 64.5 years and a median prostate-specific antigen level of 6.3 ng/mL were prospectively recruited. Of patients with complete baseline data, 36 (50.7%), 28 (39.4%), and 7 (9.9%) had mild (IPSS<8), moderate (IPSS 8–19), and severe (IPSS>20) LUTS, respectively. Obstruction was identified in 18 men (29.5%), and 9 (14.8%) showed detrusor underactivity. Of the 15 patients with detrusor overactivity, 12 (80%) reported overactive bladder (OAB). Of men with urodynamic obstruction, 5 (31.3%), 10 (62.5%), and 1 (6.3%) reported mild, moderate, and severe LUTS, respectively. Of men without OAB, 4 (11.8%, P=0.002) showed filling phase abnormalities, 13 (46.4%, P=0.611) had flow rates of <15 mL/sec, and 7 (30.4%, P=0.767) showed obstruction. Of men with mild or no LUTS, 5 (20%, P=0.072) showed obstruction and 4 (16%, P=0.524) showed poor contractility. Conclusion LUTS and OAB were common in men with localized prostate cancer undergoing RP. Detrusor overactivity and urodynamic filling phase abnormalities were strongly correlated with OAB. IPSS did not show a strong correlation with bladder outflow obstruction or detrusor underactivity. Urodynamic filling abnormalities were found in 11.8% of men without OAB. Symptomatic and functional assessment may therefore have a role in the preoperative counselling of patients and possibly guide postoperative management of LUTS, especially if OAB is present.

Objective: To identify unique immunogenic epitopes of Zika virus non-structural 1 (NS1) antigen and produce immunoglobulin Y (IgY) for potential use in he diagnosis of of Zika virus infection. Methods: Immunogenic epitopes were identified using in silico B-cell epitope prediction. A synthetic peptide analog of the predicted epitope was used to induce antipeptide IgY production in hens which was purified using affinity chromatography. Presence of purified IgY and its binding specificity were performed by gel electrophoresis and ELISA, respectively. Results: Out of the nine continuous epitopes identified, the sequence at position 193-208 (LKVREDYSLECDPAVI) was selected and used to produce anti-peptide IgY. The produced IgY was found to bind to the synthetic analog of the Zika virus NS1 immunogenic epitope but not to other flaviviruses and random peptides from other pathogens. Conclusions: In this study, we identified an immunogenic epitope unique to Zika virus that can be used to develop a serodiagnostic tool that specifically detect Zika virus infection.